Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 755–791, 2020 0892-3310/20 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Astrology and Science: A Precarious Relationship Part 1: Historical Review of German Astrology in the 20th Century and Current Developments Gerhard Mayer Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene, Freiburg i. Br./Germany [email protected] Submitted October 14, 2019; Accepted March 20, 2020; Published December 15, 2020 https://doi.org/10.31275/20201695 Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC Abstract—This two-part essay illuminates the difficult relationship be- tween astrology and science from different perspectives. While the first part provides a historical review of developments in the 20th century in German-speaking countries, the second part (also in this issue) concerns theoretical and methodological considerations for empirical investiga- tions of the validity of astrology. During the 20th century, astrology in the German-speaking world was influenced by a few people who pursued a special quest for connectivity with scientific findings and models as well as a natural philosophical foundation. The astrologer Thomas Ring developed an elaborate ‘astrological anthropology’, the “revised astrol- ogy”, which claimed to be compatible with other scientific disciplines like biology and psychology. Hans Bender, who was willing to carry out experiments in order to test astrology, became an interested counterpart to Ring. This openness to scientific scrutiny combined with the desire to replace old concepts based on magical–analogical thinking with concepts more compatible with scientific models, met with the criticism of several astrologers in the 1990s. The critics found the psychological–scientific aspiration represented as too restrictive. This led, with general sociocul- tural developments, to a change in the “astrology scene,” which is de- scribed, among other things, on the basis of some expert interviews at the end of this first part article. Keywords: astrology; experiment; magical thinking; revised astrology; science; Thomas Ring; psychologization of astrology 756 Gerhard Mayer As it is generally known, astrology was one of the recognized academic disciplines until the 17th century. Astronomy and astrology were not yet separate; nevertheless, if one could speak of a changeable history at that time, then the reasons for it lay not in challenges from scientific, but from religious concerns (Campion, 2009; Knappich & Thiel, 1988, p. 102 ff.; Stuckrad, 2003). This changed when astrology entered a crisis in the second half of the 17th century that, although it had many causes, ultimately led to the “differentiation of branches of knowledge” (Stuckrad, 2003, p. 265) and the sustainable exclusion of astrology from the canon of sciences. Although this did not lead to the “extinction” of this “science,” it was more or less pushed into the private sphere or occult underground as a serious practice. One exception was the situation in England, where public interest in astrology remained consistently high (Curry, 1989; Stuckrad, 2003, pp. 270–274). This unbroken line of tradition in England finally helped astrology to flourish again in France and Germany toward the end of the 19th century by reimporting it via theosophy. Meanwhile, these known facts can be read in corresponding historical representations (Campion, 2008, 2009; Knappich & Thiel, 1988; Stuckrad, 2003; Willis & Curry, 2004, pp. 65–76). One means of adapting astrology to modern thinking was its psychologization, influenced by the Age of Enlightenment. In a way, this saved astrology through the 20th century, comparable to the situation of Western ritual magic (cf. Hanegraaff, 2006).1 An essential instrument was depth psychology and especially the theory of archetypes by Carl Gustav Jung. In England and the USA, such a strongly psychologically dominated interpretation of astrology developed directly from the theosophical and New Age approaches as represented by the prominent astrologers Alan Leo and Dane Rudhyar (Campion, 2012, pp. 51–69). As a result, esoteric concern among these main protagonists determined the path to psychological astrology. In the German-speaking countries astrology developed differently in the 20th century. Special efforts were made to reintegrate astrology into the academic sciences, which strongly influenced the situation until the early 1990s. In this historical review, this development and changes since the 1990s will first be briefly portrayed and supplemented by a status determination from an emic point of view based on statements by Historical Review of German Astrology 757 professional astrologers. Today a central point of the precarious relationship between astrology and science is mutual misunderstanding compounded by a lack of knowledge and differentiation from both astrologers and scientists. This leads to misjudgment. In the second article that follows this one, “Part 2: Considerations of Empirical Investigations on the Validity of Astrology,” I will present and try to clarify these problems. ASTROLOGY IN GERMAN-SPEAKING COUNTRIES IN THE 20TH CENTURY Astrology will in the coming years become the acute scientific dispute . —Letter from Thomas Ring to Hannah Höch, dated October 4, 19272 Pluralism and the Heyday during the Weimar Period At the beginning of the 20th century, especially during the Weimar period, a brief phase of ideological pluralism prevailed in Germany, allowing people to follow their interests in alternative interpretations of the world. Einstein’s theory of relativity, for example, created a furor and turned understanding of the physical laws of nature upside down.3 Astrology benefited from this development as did several esoteric movements.4 After its reimport from England, several new “schools” of astrology had formed in the German-speaking area, and astrological societies and journals were established. One can speak of a flourishing period of sophisticated astrology in Germany (Howe, 1984, pp. 78–103; v. Stuckrad, 2003, pp. 321–329; Knappich & Thiel, 1988, pp. 307–329, 350–355). The ideological pluralism could also be found in astrology: There coexisted competing approaches and concepts side by side, representing various degrees of esotericism, traditional fatalistic orientation, and also orientation toward psychological and scientific interpretations. Even Karl Brandler-Pracht (1864–1939), an astrologer strongly influenced by theosophical ideas and interests in spiritualism (Howe, 1984, pp. 81–84; Schellinger, 2009; v. Stuckrad, 2003, pp. 322– 323)5, promoted a scientific and psychological approach to astrology.6 German astrologer A. M. Grimm (1892–1962), who organized the first European Astrologers’ Congress in Munich in 1922, “contributed a wonderful piece of half-baked nonsense on ‘Astrology and Einstein’s 758 Gerhard Mayer Theory of Relativity’” (Howe, 1984, p. 96). Howe writes about the period of time between the two World Wars: “The German preoccupation with astrology at that time was unparalleled in any other European country or the U.S.A.” (ibid., p. 7). The idea of a “psychological astrology” was first mentioned by German astrologers (ibid., p. 98) who referred to Carl Jung’s analytical psychology. However, a second reference to psychology was the Charakterologie, which deals with the issue of psychological types (ibid., p. 99). Both can be seen as early approaches to personality psychology. The attempts to bring astrology and science closer together could certainly be understood in the context of an “anti- disenchanting trend” (Asprem, 2014a) in parts of early 20th-century science, that relying above all on insights from quantum physics questioned a materialistic, mechanistic, and reductionist worldview represented by “classical” science. Many researchers interpreted the new developments in science as an approximation to Natural Theology, which counteracts the “disenchantment of the world” (sensu Max Weber); among them were prominent scientists such as Nils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Hans Driesch, William James, and William McDougall (Asprem, 2014a, 2014b). The orientation of astrology toward psychological and scientific interpretations became a prominent feature of its further development after the Second World War.7 A number of well-known astrologers from this period could be mentioned8 but, with regard to later development, I will introduce only the names of three: the physician and astrologer Herbert Freiherr von Klöckler (1896–1950), the psychoanalyst and astrologer Fritz Riemann (1902–1979), and the artist, author, and astrologer Thomas Ring (1892–1983). These three astrologers had an extraordinary influence on postwar astrology in Germany up until the 1990s—at least as far as the specific approach mentioned above is concerned. Herbert Freiherr von Klöckler Herbert Freiherr von Klöckler (Figure 1) was closely oriented toward psychology and the sciences, and aimed for an empirical (statistical) investigation of astrology. He wanted to free astrology from its medieval “ballast”, i.e. concepts that are difficult to integrate into a modern worldview, and create a version more compatible with modern Historical Review of German Astrology 759 times (Howe, 1984, p. 100). He rejected deterministic and fatalistic ideas of astrology, as well as the concept of a static and fixed character of a person. Moreover, he related astrology strongly to astronomical facts. Therefore, he refused astrological prognostic meth- ods that refer to symbolic relationships, as is the case with the various